Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawk Diesel" data-source="post: 7622334" data-attributes="member: 59848">Actually, I think the normal two weapon fighting rules should remain the same. For example, it should be a meaningful choice for a rogue to pick between the extra attack, or disengaging. The benefit of making the fighting style specifically grant the benefits above is that it ALSO allows for a bonus action for normal two weapon fighting, but does not require it for a fighter to benefit. So a fighter can do both. (This is especially good from my perspective, as I have reworked the fighter to get Action Surge a little later in favor of an ability similar to cunning action that allows the fighter to get a Shove or Grapple as a bonus action. Makes fighters a little less valuable as a two level dip, and gives fighters a regular use for bonus actions).Personally, I would adjust the Dual Wielder feat as follows:Dual WielderYou master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:• You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.• You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.• When you use a bonus action to make an off-hand attack, you can add your ability modifier to damageThe last part of the original feat always seemed bad. For me at least, it doesn't make sense to penalize a player that wants to dual wield by making them use an additional action to take out one additional weapon and delay their effectiveness in combat by a round unless they have this feat. Two weapon fighting isn't so powerful that it requires such a nerf to be balanced against a single weapon. Especially since there is never any question about being able to whip out a shield and sword in the same round with an object interaction. At least, not in any of the games I've ever been a part of.</blockquote>

Verification